Players BANNED for going to Ilum? Suggestions to Customer Service

[JerseyDevlin]

not buying this sorry.

[Blackk]

Looting high level loot containers that are not level locked because you've leveled up your skills to get into the zone?

 

Entering into a pvp zone to loot containers isn't a crime. The loot containers do not have a level restriction, only a skill restriction. He levelled up his crafting skill to the point that it was the zone that he needed to be in to skill up.

 

Why else would you go into a new zone? Are you expected just to watch? No, you PLAY the game. You capture points, you fight, you open locks, you loot salvage.

 

What is being stated here is that: You should not be interacting with items above your level in higher level zones EVEN if you are allowed to. They're setting a precedence that just opens the game to further problems.

[Mishmashmoo]

This can't be true. That's so unjust! We sound make a petition to get his account back

[BigDras]

You were warned. You were banned. Your fault.

[Blackk]

You were warned. You were banned. Your fault.

 

He was not warned. He was only banned. You did not read the post.

[Malice_Nihilim]

Lawl BS...just like every innocent whine in every other game I have played....'I was banned for changing my name, i was banned for going into a zone...I was banned for owning to much gold!'

 

No, you were banned for abusing a system to trick someone into changing your name, you exploited, wall walked, glitched or otherwise intentionally entered an area via nefarious means, And no, they didn't banned you have being awesome at farming gold, they banned you for selling that gold for RL money'.

 

Twist the story how you like. Being a former GM for a previous game, the process that goes thru taking action against is extensive. Ever since EQ's 'cowboy crazy GMs', no game company would even ever think of giving staff that kind of power. It has to go up thru tiers of management and the like to make a call like that, and there better be triple redundant proof that a violation was going on.

 

This is all a made up sad story to try to create an angry voice toward BW in vengeance for getting caught doing something actually wrong.

[Brunum]

Lawl BS...just like every innocent whine in every other game I have played....'I was banned for changing my name, i was banned for going into a zone...I was banned for owning to much gold!'

 

No, you were banned for abusing a system to trick someone into changing your name, you exploited, wall walked, glitched or otherwise intentionally entered an area via nefarious means, And no, they didn't banned you have being awesome at farming gold, they banned you for selling that gold for RL money'.

 

Twist the story how you like. Being a former GM for a previous game, the process that goes thru taking action against is extensive. Ever since EQ's 'cowboy crazy GMs', no game company would even ever think of giving staff that kind of power. It has to go up thru tiers of management and the like to make a call like that, and there better be triple redundant proof that a violation was going on.

 

This is all a made up sad story to try to create an angry voice toward BW in vengeance for getting caught doing something actually wrong.

 

No better way to say what I think than what was said. You'd think ppl would learn that getting BANNED means serious offense and was validated more than one time dont be fooled by the OP.

[Nate_T]

So they're cracking down on exploiters, nice. Thanks Bioware.

[Wepo]

Looting high level loot containers that are not level locked because you've leveled up your skills to get into the zone?

 

Entering into a pvp zone to loot containers isn't a crime. The loot containers do not have a level restriction, only a skill restriction. He levelled up his crafting skill to the point that it was the zone that he needed to be in to skill up.

 

Why else would you go into a new zone? Are you expected just to watch? No, you PLAY the game. You capture points, you fight, you open locks, you loot salvage.

 

What is being stated here is that: You should not be interacting with items above your level in higher level zones EVEN if you are allowed to. They're setting a precedence that just opens the game to further problems.

 

 

I believe what is being stated here is you should not have one low level rebel running with a team of imps (or vice versa) just to flip points and loot the high level boxes. The game is designed to be reb vs imp. Not imps roll a reb to exploit game design.

[JCShooter]

Lawl BS...just like every innocent whine in every other game I have played....'I was banned for changing my name, i was banned for going into a zone...I was banned for owning to much gold!'

 

No, you were banned for abusing a system to trick someone into changing your name, you exploited, wall walked, glitched or otherwise intentionally entered an area via nefarious means, And no, they didn't banned you have being awesome at farming gold, they banned you for selling that gold for RL money'.

 

Twist the story how you like. Being a former GM for a previous game, the process that goes thru taking action against is extensive. Ever since EQ's 'cowboy crazy GMs', no game company would even ever think of giving staff that kind of power. It has to go up thru tiers of management and the like to make a call like that, and there better be triple redundant proof that a violation was going on.

 

This is all a made up sad story to try to create an angry voice toward BW in vengeance for getting caught doing something actually wrong.

 

 

 

Being a former GM for 2 previous games I can say banning is as easy as logging into a character.

And the whole disucssion isn't whether BW was in their right to ban someone or not, as they -always are-, but whether the conditions they did it under are something "I as a paying customer" feel good or wrong about.

 

Like I stated last night, imagine going to a club that asks an 80 dollar entry fee only to have the bouncers kick you out "because -they- said they saw you doing something wrong, even though you got NO idea what is going on and why".. Sure they are in their complete right to do so, it's their club, but I'm sure as hell not going to "ask the manager nicely to reevaluate his bouncers actions and please let me back in again". Screw them, there's a another club right next to them, and another one being build across the road.

[Brunum]

Being a former GM for 2 previous games I can say banning is as easy as logging into a character.

And the whole disucssion isn't whether BW was in their right to ban someone or not, as they -always are-, but whether the conditions they did it under are something "I as a paying customer" feel good or wrong about.

 

Like I stated last night, imagine going to a club that asks an 80 dollar entry fee only to have the bouncers kick you out "because -they- said they saw you doing something wrong, even though you got NO idea what is going on and why".. Sure they are in their complete right to do so, it's their club, but I'm sure as hell not going to "ask the manager nicely to reevaluate his bouncers actions and please let me back in again". Screw them, there's a another club right next to them, and another one being build across the road.

 

Oh please! Ppl who get banned know for a fact they did something wrong period. If you really believe ppl dont know why they get banned you are naive my friend, they know and thats why they get angry and try to gather sympathy in order to make themselves feel better. Anyhow I dont believe this guy, hes the classic banned "innocent" case.

[JCShooter]

Right, again to put this into perspective,

 

Imagine this really basic driving game where you have to drive over a straight road and dodge other cars. It's the whole point of the game to get as far as possible. Now, instead of driving on the road and dodging cars, you can also just drive on the sand right next to the road, and drive at the same speed as if you were on the road, but don't have -any- objects to dodge.

Now you get banned, for exploiting the game by "not playing it as intended by the developers". Sure they -could- have restricted you from even going on the sand all together because it's a computer game, or at least made the sand drive differently from the tarmac, but no, they left the sand wide and open for you to ride on, and instead are banning you by some verbal/bi-rule in some EULA.

[Fozziwig]

 

Here's the screenshot with account, character, and email blanked out for privacy purposes.

 

Once again, the purpose of this is not to TROLL SWTOR. I like the game. But I want CS to treat it's players with the respect and fairness that we deserve.

 

Were you warned? A warning would be appropriate, and if ignored, then a ban would be appropriate as well.

[Blackk]

Were you warned? A warning would be appropriate, and if ignored, then a ban would be appropriate as well.

 

No, there was no warning. They considered the ban a warning in itself apparently. It may be a temporary ban, but it doesn't say for how long.

[Wepo]

Right, again to put this into perspective,

 

Imagine this really basic driving game where you have to drive over a straight road and dodge other cars. It's the whole point of the game to get as far as possible. Now, instead of driving on the road and dodging cars, you can also just drive on the sand right next to the road, and drive at the same speed as if you were on the road, but don't have -any- objects to dodge.

Now you get banned, for exploiting the game by "not playing it as intended by the developers". Sure they -could- have restricted you from even going on the sand all together because it's a computer game, or at least made the sand drive differently from the tarmac, but no, they left the sand wide and open for you to ride on, and instead are banning you by some verbal/bi-rule in some EULA.

 

And imagine that the driving game was a brand new, yet hugely popular MMO with new economy. And you won a million dollars for each race you won. So eventually no one would play the game the right way in order to afford anything, it would not be fun driving on the sand with no challenge, everyone would leave and the game would eventually close.

 

Good analogy.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Wepo

[Malice_Nihilim]

Right, again to put this into perspective,

 

Imagine this really basic driving game where you have to drive over a straight road and dodge other cars. It's the whole point of the game to get as far as possible. Now, instead of driving on the road and dodging cars, you can also just drive on the sand right next to the road, and drive at the same speed as if you were on the road, but don't have -any- objects to dodge.

Now you get banned, for exploiting the game by "not playing it as intended by the developers". Sure they -could- have restricted you from even going on the sand all together because it's a computer game, or at least made the sand drive differently from the tarmac, but no, they left the sand wide and open for you to ride on, and instead are banning you by some verbal/bi-rule in some EULA.

 

More folks and there desperate rationalization games. More like 'you slammed your car repeatedly into the side to find a glitch that allowed you out onto the sand and then am like 'lawl I win!' then you do it over and over. Thats called exploiting and the type of behavior that gets people banned. If they were in the wrong place, they would have gotten a warning, until they told the GM to #%)*#&$*) up there @)#$*@$*) you @$))*@$). Then they would get a 24 suspension for being a moron.

 

I think also we need to clarify language. a 1-3 day suspension is just that, its like being suspended from school, work, whatever.....a Ban is removal of your account. But people like to use the word 'ban' to in reaction to even a 1-2 hour 'you need to cool down' suspension.

 

I can only assume the user got a 24 hour suspension for violating the game as intended by exploiting Illum farming, etc.

[bboudreaux]

that email is NOT proof .. that could have been easily spoofed by someone angry with the game and just trying to get back at BW

 

Even if it was real and the planet was bugged where it was supposed to be locked for player under the level requirements then the player should have known it was an exploit but continued anyway .. if this is the case then her deserves to be banned permanently

Edited December 31, 2011 by bboudreaux

[JCShooter]

And imagine that the driving game was a brand new, yet hugely popular MMO with new economy. And you won a million dollars for each race you won. So eventually no one would play the game the right way in order to afford anything, it would not be fun driving on the sand with no challenge, everyone would leave and the game would eventually close.

 

Good analogy.

 

 

 

It sure is, because again.. are you to blame your players for your shortcomings in developing the game?

 

If I design a road so stupidly that the drivers on the road are bound to make mistakes, are the tickets and jail sentences justified or are those people the victims of a broken system to begin with.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm hugely against exploiting in any form, but missing level locks cause them to ban players instead of add a level lock? come on.

It's not like they rode on the ship of a level 50 and "actually" exploited their way into the area by bugging through an invisible wall or whatever.

 

They got banned for breaking a "verbal law" in a computer game.

 

A "do what we tell you to do, not how we show you to do it" ban.

[Nevarion]

If held true, this shows an astonishing lack of understanding of gameing. The ban is not ok.

 

True it might be considered a exploit but the whole issue stretches far and thin. As such it was not handled properly in my opinion.

[bboudreaux]

Right, again to put this into perspective,

 

Imagine this really basic driving game where you have to drive over a straight road and dodge other cars. It's the whole point of the game to get as far as possible. Now, instead of driving on the road and dodging cars, you can also just drive on the sand right next to the road, and drive at the same speed as if you were on the road, but don't have -any- objects to dodge.

Now you get banned, for exploiting the game by "not playing it as intended by the developers". Sure they -could- have restricted you from even going on the sand all together because it's a computer game, or at least made the sand drive differently from the tarmac, but no, they left the sand wide and open for you to ride on, and instead are banning you by some verbal/bi-rule in some EULA.

 

Well maybe it's a bug that needs to be fixed where the "blocking them from driving on the sand" is not working .. then it's an exploit and players should be banned for that

 

maybe you should look up the definition of exploit?

 

Oh wait nevermind ... nothing is ever your fault you will find a way to blame someone else like " Hey they should have fixed that bug, it's not my fault!"

Edited December 31, 2011 by bboudreaux

[JCShooter]

More folks and there desperate rationalization games. More like 'you slammed your car repeatedly into the side to find a glitch that allowed you out onto the sand and then am like 'lawl I win!' then you do it over and over. Thats called exploiting and the type of behavior that gets people banned. If they were in the wrong place, they would have gotten a warning, until they told the GM to #%)*#&$*) up there @)#$*@$*) you @$))*@$). Then they would get a 24 suspension for being a moron.

 

I think also we need to clarify language. a 1-3 day suspension is just that, its like being suspended from school, work, whatever.....a Ban is removal of your account. But people like to use the word 'ban' to in reaction to even a 1-2 hour 'you need to cool down' suspension.

 

I can only assume the user got a 24 hour suspension for violating the game as intended by exploiting Illum farming, etc.

 

 

Stop looking at computer games as real life situations you can squeeze yourself through.

As if an exploiter is someone who's driving on the closed off side lane because he looked at the "nono" signs, but still kept going. "Nono" sign in a computer game means NO. Just like typing in the wrong password won't log you in.

 

Code is definitive, any failings of the code are failure in it's creation, not in it's application.

Sure if a certain specific set of failures -has- to be repeated in a certain way in order to get profit results from it, sure the INTENT TO EXPLOIT is there.

 

But clicking on a planet that doesn't keep you from going there, and then clicking on the boxes that don't keep you from opening them because you also are allowed to have that skill level, are two non intentional behavioral actions that resulted in unfair profit and should have been changed. But should not have caused the players who did it to get banned, as if they jumped through coding hoops to get there.

[Woodspoon]

It's BS

 

That e-mail is all sorts of shopped wrongness

 

The subject heading for an account warning would not be "An important announcement regarding your SW:TOR account"

It would more likely be "Your SW:TOR account has been suspended" or " important information regarding your SW:TOR account".

Using the word "announcement" implies that it is information that will be told to everyone which it wouldn't be, account admin's are usually very careful about their wording of e-mails to avoid confusion or anything implied.

[JCShooter]

Well maybe it's a bug that needs to be fixed where the "blocking them from driving on the sand" is not working .. then it's an exploit and players should be banned for that

 

maybe you should look up the definition of exploit?

 

Oh wait nevermind ... nothing is ever your fault you will find a way to blame someone else like " Hey they should have fixed that bug, it's not my fault!"

 

 

 

A bug in this system would have ment that either the planet said "REQUIREMENT X", and the requirement code didn't work properly, you discovered this and still did it.

Or if the boxes required 350 skill, and it's bugged so you can do it with 200.

 

No skill lock, and no trade caps aren't bugs, but oversights. Something that isn't there can't be bugged.

 

 

and edit: I'm not allowed to blame the person who made something if it's not working properly?

So if I buy a three legged chair, it's my fault for not sitting on it right and not the creators fault for not putting a 4th one on? Especially if the feature list on the box of the chair said "4 legs!".

 

 

At the end of the day this all comes down to the gaming industry being the ONLY industry on the planet allowed to deliver broken goods while being protected from returning money ect, bah I'll skip this because it'll only piss me off more.

Edited December 31, 2011 by JCShooter

[Blackk]

The context of exploit is not the topic of the discussion.

 

Players were operating inside the bounds of the game.

 

According to the GM email, players have been banned (temporarily or otherwise) for harvesting nodes in a level 50 pvp zone.

 

There were no game broadcasts, verbal warnings from GMs, MOTDs, or anything stating that this was a problem (certainly, not all of us read the forums. I prefer to spend my time playing the game instead of reading about it)

 

My goal is to set expectations on what players expect for customer service. Personally, if I was doing something wrong without knowledge of it, I would like a verbal acknowledgement before I was banned from the game. I'm certain that almost everyone would have.

 

This thread is to look at the events of these bans (and for those of you that post it's unbelievable that they would do such a thing, that's fine! I find it unbelievable too. That's why I CREATED this topic! It's ridiculous!) And create awareness to the problem, and suggest solutions.

[Wepo]

It sure is, because again.. are you to blame your players for your shortcomings in developing the game?

 

If I design a road so stupidly that the drivers on the road are bound to make mistakes, are the tickets and jail sentences justified or are those people the victims of a broken system to begin with.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm hugely against exploiting in any form, but missing level locks cause them to ban players instead of add a level lock? come on.

It's not like they rode on the ship of a level 50 and "actually" exploited their way into the area by bugging through an invisible wall or whatever.

 

They got banned for breaking a "verbal law" in a computer game.

 

A "do what we tell you to do, not how we show you to do it" ban.

 

They got banned because they exploited the obvious intention of the game. Because a specific rule does not exist preventing a very specific action does not make it right, OK or not ban worthy. People who argue semantics like this are usually those always trying to take short cuts and cheat a system for their own selfish advantage. I've seen this same style argument dozens of times all the way back to 1998 in UO.

 

It seems little changes except screen names.